• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does your morality and ethics define your political beliefs?

Behavior standards which apply universally, and reflect the level of integrity that an indiviual has.

It sounds like a combination of ethics and morals, where ethics are external and morals are internal, but close enough.

I'd like to follow up with another question if you'd continue to humor me, at the end of the day, would you agree that the point of moral systems is to maximize happiness and well-being and minimize pain and suffering? If you don't agree, then what is the point of morals and moral systems?
 
That's not morality, that's compassion. We need both, but they are different things: morality is a set of rules, not a belief or an emotion.

Morality is in fact a set of rules based on your beliefs. You hold moral positions based on your beliefs of right and wrong.
 
Morality is in fact a set of rules based on your beliefs. You hold moral positions based on your beliefs of right and wrong.

It is based on axiomatic affirmation of certain values, sure. But it is still a set of rules, not a belief.
 
I'd like to follow up with another question if you'd continue to humor me, at the end of the day, would you agree that the point of moral systems is to maximize happiness and well-being and minimize pain and suffering? If you don't agree, then what is the point of morals and moral systems?

Yes, but it's not the pain and suffering of those around you, but the pain and suffering for the individual whose ethical and moral actions are screwed up, or non-existent. Iow, the reason for ethical behavior, is to insure your own sense of worth and fulfillment, and not that of others. When a person has difficulty adhering to an ethical standard of behaviors, it is he who suffers internally. As an example, take a hypothetical case of a common thief. His actions are dishonest. His actions may cause me a loss of "things", but things are just temporary. Eventually, and assuming he reaches the stage that ethics are meaningful to him, he will have to come to terms with his own unethical behaviors, and change for the better. I will have a loss of things. He will suffer a loss mentally and emotionally, and coming to terms with one's own negative traits is one of the harder things for people to do over the long haul.
 
Yes. My political values are derived almost entirely from my moral values.
 
Yes, but it's not the pain and suffering of those around you, but the pain and suffering for the individual whose ethical and moral actions are screwed up, or non-existent. Iow, the reason for ethical behavior, is to insure your own sense of worth and fulfillment, and not that of others. When a person has difficulty adhering to an ethical standard of behaviors, it is he who suffers internally. As an example, take a hypothetical case of a common thief. His actions are dishonest. His actions may cause me a loss of "things", but things are just temporary. Eventually, and assuming he reaches the stage that ethics are meaningful to him, he will have to come to terms with his own unethical behaviors, and change for the better. I will have a loss of things. He will suffer a loss mentally and emotionally, and coming to terms with one's own negative traits is one of the harder things for people to do over the long haul.

Disclaimer, I'm not trying to misquote you, only clarify....

So, let me see if I can shorten what you've say into something clearer.....What you're saying is that guilt is self inflicted suffering that people experience when they fail to be moral, and that practicing good moral behavior is about preventing this suffering to oneself and has nothing to do with how your actions affect others?
 
It is based on axiomatic affirmation of certain values, sure. But it is still a set of rules, not a belief.

I'm genuinely interested in what axiomatic values you'd base morality on if you wouldn't mind sharing.
 
Disclaimer, I'm not trying to misquote you, only clarify....

So, let me see if I can shorten what you've say into something clearer.....What you're saying is that guilt is self inflicted suffering that people experience when they fail to be moral, and that practicing good moral behavior is about preventing this suffering to oneself and has nothing to do with how your actions affect others?

Sort of, but not exactly. Moral behaviors have an effect on others, but the behaviors are reflective of the individual, and his/her integrity. The behaviors are standards to adhere to, in order to prevent harming someone else. Moral standards are universal, and not dependent on one's station in life. Examples of ethical behaviors would be honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, and similar characteristics which can be attributed to anyone who is capable of thought and action.
 
I'm genuinely interested in what axiomatic values you'd base morality on if you wouldn't mind sharing.

I already did share, # 25 - freedom of choice. It may be a distinct and perhaps unique central feature of human experience, but we really simply assert that it is super-duper-important, a key value. You may say that moral intuition, or empathy, or fear of living in a lawless society, or religious feeling pushed, motivated you to make such affirmation. But it is still an axiom, not something derived from other positions.
 
Sort of, but not exactly. Moral behaviors have an effect on others, but the behaviors are reflective of the individual, and his/her integrity. The behaviors are standards to adhere to, in order to prevent harming someone else. Moral standards are universal, and not dependent on one's station in life. Examples of ethical behaviors would be honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, and similar characteristics which can be attributed to anyone who is capable of thought and action.

Now I don't mean to sound snide, but what if being honest would result in harm? (Warning, lame hypothetical incoming) If a former employee breaks into my job holding a gun screaming he wants to kill my boss and my boss is hiding under my desk. If the enraged former employee asks me if I know where my boss is, I would lie, I would be dishonest. Now you may respond that all I had to do was use common sense or intuition and I could of solved the problem, but there are many less extreme situations that aren't that clear cut. Furthermore, there are many people that don't, or cannot make the distinction about when it's ok to be dishonest.

I guess my point is, that you based morals upon acts or words out of context. It's possible to be all the things you've defined and it result in harm.

If I based morals upon the belief that people can objectively suffer (or flourish) then judging an action would be based, at it's root, upon the outcome of that action and could be judged solely upon the result in a given context if we know that moral actions are those that result in the prevention of suffering, or the happiness and/ or well-being of another person. The only variable would be the amount of information a person has.

In other words, if I pursued a course of action that I believed would be helpful and it ended up causing harm. What was missing was information. Cutting off another persons hand would be immoral, unless it was to save his life. But what if I cut it off thinking it would save his life only to find out later on that I didn't have to cut it off? Assuming that there was no reasonable exaction that I should known better, then strictly speaking the act could be considered morally neutral. Or you could even say it was immoral, but the intention was "good" thus the consequence would be less severe or non existent.

I think we can agree that killing is immoral, but what if I was in the position to save 10 people from certain death, by simply pressing a button, but if I did press it I knew that 1 person somewhere else would die? These kinds of decision require a kind of moral calculus because a set list of ideas and principles aren't enough, imo to deal with the nearly infinite circumstances that could arise.

I think defining morality on words or concepts that can be interpreted allows people to justify bad outcomes on literal interpretation. It would seem at the root of it all, we should all agree that as people we want to be happy and healthy and we want to avoid suffering and pain. Since we know that others experience the same things we do, then we should offer to extend these ideas to others with the expectation that they will return the favor.
 
Last edited:
I already did share, # 25 - freedom of choice. It may be a distinct and perhaps unique central feature of human experience, but we really simply assert that it is super-duper-important, a key value. You may say that moral intuition, or empathy, or fear of living in a lawless society, or religious feeling pushed, motivated you to make such affirmation. But it is still an axiom, not something derived from other positions.

I could see how being constrained could effect ones ability to be moral (as does my ability to breath), that is, if I can't breath I cant do anything, of I am restrained and isolated then I can't be moral, or immoral. My being restrained could be caused by an immoral action of another, but I could think of circumstances where limiting freedom is a very good thing.

Now I would describe freedom not as the foundation of morality (which is what I assume you mean by axiomatic), but the result of the simple idea that people succeed best when they are happy and healthy and free from pain and suffering, but as I said in the post above, one cannot judge these ideas in a vacuum. If the goal is what I've said, and one has some understanding about the context in which they can apply there morals, then "freedom" can be judged at either end of the spectrum.

Should you be free to choose to obey the red light? Of course not. You willingly give up the choice of driving though it, because you know that other people are just like you, they want to know that when the light is green, that others are willing to give up their freedom for the betterment of all.

So is freedom axiomatic? I don't think so, can it promote happiness? Absolutely, but freedom can also cause suffering, but to determine the morality of freedom, one must understand the context in which freedom is being practiced.
 
Now I don't mean to sound snide, but what if being honest would result in harm? (Warning, lame hypothetical incoming) If a former employee breaks into my job holding a gun screaming he wants to kill my boss and my boss is hiding under my desk. If the enraged former employee asks me if I know where my boss is, I would lie, I would be dishonest. Now you may respond that all I had to do was use common sense or intuition and I could of solved the problem, but there are many less extreme situations that aren't that clear cut. Furthermore, there are many people that don't, or cannot make the distinction about when it's ok to be dishonest.

No surprise in people being snide, is there?
When I say honest, I am referring to a person who is truthful about themselves, and has no reason for pretense. This gets back to the idea of morality being a personal attribute and characteristic. I am not referring to the act of lying due to circumstantial situations.
I think we can agree that killing is immoral, but what if I was in the position to save 10 people from certain death, by simply pressing a button, but if I did press it I knew that 1 person somewhere else would die? These kinds of decision require a kind of moral calculus because a set list of ideas and principles aren't enough, imo to deal with the nearly infinite circumstances that could arise.

Well, in reality, no one person's life is worth more than another, except in that we have emotional prejudices. Is it actually more ethical to kill the one, in order to save the ten. Not imo.

I think defining morality on words or concepts that can be taken allows people to justify bad outcomes on literal interpretation. It would seem at the root of it all, we should all agree that as people we want to be happy and healthy and we want to avoid suffering and pain. Since we know that other experience the same things we do, then we should offer to extend these ideas to others with the expectation that they will return the favor.

I guess it's a good thing that morality is, for the most part, subjective.
 
this is simply factually not true, many people including myself have different politic views and goals than their own personal ethics, believes, morals and opinions.

In fact the best leaders and politicians understand they need to have an amount of separation.

THinking my personal morals and ethics need to be forced on the country is ass backwards and goes against what this country is.

What DEFINTES a good leader or politician is an ethical question.

What the role of politics, what the goal of politics, what the purpose of it, the validity of it and so on are all ethical questions. You CANNOT talk about politics with out presuming ethical truths or debating them.
 
No surprise in people being snide, is there?

On this site...nope. Having said that, this site is better than most that I've seen that deal with similar topics.

When I say honest, I am referring to a person who is truthful about themselves, and has no reason for pretense. This gets back to the idea of morality being a personal attribute and characteristic. I am not referring to the act of lying due to circumstantial situations.

And how would a person determine if their being honest with themselves? That seems about as subjective as a system of morality can get.

Well, in reality, no one person's life is worth more than another, except in that we have emotional prejudices. Is it actually more ethical to kill the one, in order to save the ten. Not imo.

I'll respectfully disagree. Adolf Hitler's life isn't worth the same as say, Edward Jenner (the inventor of vaccinations), or Albert Einstein, or Martin Luther King. Is that my subjective or emotional opinion? I'd argue that, if the term morality is to have any meaning whatsoever, the it can be demonstrably proven that the life of Adolf Hitler is worth less than the other people I cited.

Anyone given the opportunity to end Hitler's life, but chose not to on the grounds that his life was (is) just as valuable as anyone else, is immoral.

I guess it's a good thing that morality is, for the most part, subjective.

I'd argue that given enough information, one can objectively determine morality.
 
I could see how being constrained could effect ones ability to be moral (as does my ability to breath), that is, if I can't breath I cant do anything, of I am restrained and isolated then I can't be moral, or immoral. My being restrained could be caused by an immoral action of another, but I could think of circumstances where limiting freedom is a very good thing.

Now I would describe freedom not as the foundation of morality (which is what I assume you mean by axiomatic), but the result of the simple idea that people succeed best when they are happy and healthy and free from pain and suffering, but as I said in the post above, one cannot judge these ideas in a vacuum. If the goal is what I've said, and one has some understanding about the context in which they can apply there morals, then "freedom" can be judged at either end of the spectrum.

Should you be free to choose to obey the red light? Of course not. You willingly give up the choice of driving though it, because you know that other people are just like you, they want to know that when the light is green, that others are willing to give up their freedom for the betterment of all.

So is freedom axiomatic? I don't think so, can it promote happiness? Absolutely, but freedom can also cause suffering, but to determine the morality of freedom, one must understand the context in which freedom is being practiced.

Freedom of choice means freedom of choice for everyone, right? I do not exercise my freedom to run on red light because I understand it may lead to injury of other people who did not choose to be hurt.

This is not about "freedom" in some silly anarchic way. My freedom ends where yours begins. We do not think of Josef Stalin as a great libertarian, even though he pretty much did whatever he wanted.

The moral system centered on freedom of choice is in reality VERY restrictive: "not doing unto others what you do not wish done onto yourself" is hard work. Ignoring other people's choices, coercing them, or lying to them to induce them into making uninformed choices -we see it all around us, every day. "The evil", you know.

Further, many of our actions are not a result of conscious choice - we do a lot of things on autopilot, following our subconscious, and it is even fashionable in certain quarters today to describe us as quasi-robots lacking free will. (Kind of like the old-school Marxists thought of human beings as puppets of their socioeconomic environment, only now we don't even need to point to the source of this or that action: It's all in your head, but out of your control).

Further, there are inevitable grey areas regarding the age of consent, mental disability, and just plain stupidity. The liberal pedagogues had struggled with this dilemma for centuries: How do you instill respect for freedom of choice into a mind of a child who is denied his choices all the time, by necessity? And of course, all tyrants in the world always believe that people at large are too stupid to make rational choices, and the only freedom of choice that matters is their own...

Still, what defines an individual human being in life, if not the sum total of conscious choices he had made? Only in that respect one person is different from any other, only in this sense he is not a slave, but has his own life worth living. Starting a moral system from defense of the faculty that makes that possible - freedom of choice - seems natural.
 
No surprise in people being snide, is there?

On this site...nope. Having said that, this site is better than most that I've seen that deal with similar topics.

When I say honest, I am referring to a person who is truthful about themselves, and has no reason for pretense. This gets back to the idea of morality being a personal attribute and characteristic. I am not referring to the act of lying due to circumstantial situations.

And how would a person determine if their being honest with themselves? That seems about as subjective as a system of morality can get.

Well, in reality, no one person's life is worth more than another, except in that we have emotional prejudices. Is it actually more ethical to kill the one, in order to save the ten. Not imo.

You wouldn't push a button to save a net 9 lives? Would you push a button to save a net 99 lives, or 99,999 lives? Is there a point in which the idea of saving lives by sacrificing another is moral in your mind?

I'll respectfully disagree. Adolf Hitler's life isn't worth the same as say, Edward Jenner (the inventor of vaccinations), or Albert Einstein, or Martin Luther King. Is that my subjective or emotional opinion? I'd argue that, if the term morality is to have any meaning whatsoever, the it can be demonstrably proven that the life of Adolf Hitler is worth less than the other people I cited.

Anyone given the opportunity to end Hitler's life, but chose not to on the grounds that his life was (is) just as valuable as anyone else, is immoral.

I guess it's a good thing that morality is, for the most part, subjective.

I'd argue that given enough information, one can objectively determine morality.
 
Last edited:
Freedom of choice means freedom of choice for everyone, right? I do not exercise my freedom to run on red light because I understand it may lead to injury of other people who did not choose to be hurt.

This is not about "freedom" in some silly anarchic way. My freedom ends where yours begins. We do not think of Josef Stalin as a great libertarian, even though he pretty much did whatever he wanted.

The moral system centered on freedom of choice is in reality VERY restrictive: "not doing unto others what you do not wish done onto yourself" is hard work. Ignoring other people's choices, coercing them, or lying to them to induce them into making uninformed choices -we see it all around us, every day. "The evil", you know.

Further, many of our actions are not a result of conscious choice - we do a lot of things on autopilot, following our subconscious, and it is even fashionable in certain quarters today to describe us as quasi-robots lacking free will. (Kind of like the old-school Marxists thought of human beings as puppets of their socioeconomic environment, only now we don't even need to point to the source of this or that action: It's all in your head, but out of your control).

Further, there are inevitable grey areas regarding the age of consent, mental disability, and just plain stupidity. The liberal pedagogues had struggled with this dilemma for centuries: How do you instill respect for freedom of choice into a mind of a child who is denied his choices all the time, by necessity? And of course, all tyrants in the world always believe that people at large are too stupid to make rational choices, and the only freedom of choice that matters is their own...

Still, what defines an individual human being in life, if not the sum total of conscious choices he had made? Only in that respect one person is different from any other, only in this sense he is not a slave, but has his own life worth living. Starting a moral system from defense of the faculty that makes that possible - freedom of choice - seems natural.

Ok, it's not freedom in an archaic sense, but still seems to lack a goal. Freedom seems to be more as a method to achieve a goal, the means, but not the ends. What is the goal of your ideal moral system? How would you measure success of your moral system?
 
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.

I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)

I have never thought about it. I too believe in helping those who cannot help themselves, but I do not think it is the governments responsibility, it is society as a whole. It is people helping people, people giving of their time, their energy and their money. It is not government taxing everyone so there can be a government program. But I grew up in the 50's where an individual was responsible for himself, then if hard time arrived, family stepped in to help, neighbors and the local community, churches and charity organizations. People were involved in helping people and they did so because they wanted to, not being taxed to do so. I remember many a clothes, can and food drives as a youth.

But I do not mean government can't help. I do believe they need to provide a safety net, a low safety net but one none the less. There will always be people slipping through the cracks, so some government involvement is necessary and wanted. I would prefer it to be more at the state and local levels than federal, but hey, programs like social security and medicare are god sent. But those programs are where I pretty much would stop federal government involvement although I may have overlooked something.

Would I say I am a moral man, that would depend on whose definition of moral you're going by. Running around places like bangkok, Vientiane and Saigon I enjoy their women to the max. Drank quite a lot too. But once finally married, have been true blue. I too am all for equal rights and am anti discrimination. I would classify myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I fit into neither of the two major parties and blame both for all our problems we have today. They caused them, but they can't fix them. I guess my politics is more anti-political party than anything else. I am sick and tired of the political agendas each party tries to force upon the whole of America and would do away with both the Republican and Democratic Parties if I could. Does this make me anti-establishment, I don't think concerning my other views.
 
Ok, it's not freedom in an archaic sense, but still seems to lack a goal. Freedom seems to be more as a method to achieve a goal, the means, but not the ends. What is the goal of your ideal moral system? How would you measure success of your moral system?

The goal of the moral system is to secure your right to have and achieve your goals, my right to have and achieve mine, and so on. "The pursuit of happiness". We are all different, and I should not presume to know what your goals should be - only that your actions on the way toward your goals should not violate freedom of choice of other people. No utopian end-point where everyone is united by some orgasmic solipsism and "everything is just right".
 
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.

I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)

Maybe - but as of yet, no. My choice for candidates isn't dictated by moral issues like abortion and religion.
 
The goal of the moral system is to secure your right to have and achieve your goals, my right to have and achieve mine, and so on. "The pursuit of happiness". We are all different, and I should not presume to know what your goals should be - only that your actions on the way toward your goals should not violate freedom of choice of other people. No utopian end-point where everyone is united by some orgasmic solipsism and "everything is just right".

Again, this seems more of a prescriptive system for achieving a greater end. You mention "happiness", now that seems like a goal. The opposite of happiness would be what you're trying to avoid? Correct?

So can we agree that happiness well-being and health is the positive result of a moral system and that you think freedom is the prescriptive system that is the best way to achieve those ends?

Is that a fair assessment?
 
Politics, by very nature, is based upon morality. It involves the selection of those who will codify various moral considerations into law.

As far as people deriving their political views from their moral, however, for the majority of people the reverse is true. They simply conform to a political label and say the things that they are expected to say. While in a general sense, the various ideologies are predicated on some sort of morality (I would suggest George Lakoff's for some of the more general differences in views vis a vis liberal and conservative ideology), as far as individuals are concerned, precious few ever think deeply enough to do much more than parroting the party line. It's pretty much just a case of ideology forming the basis for a tribe, since it is more about identity than it is morality.
 
Again, this seems more of a prescriptive system for achieving a greater end. You mention "happiness", now that seems like a goal. The opposite of happiness would be what you're trying to avoid? Correct?

So can we agree that happiness well-being and health is the positive result of a moral system and that you think freedom is the prescriptive system that is the best way to achieve those ends?

Is that a fair assessment?

Yes, but with a qualification. I view morality as a set of rules that prevent individuals from hurting each other and blocking each others' ways to happiness - WHATEVER EACH OF THEM PERCEIVES as "happiness". But if somebody's happiness could be derived from being a successful serial killer - tough. In this sense, the means are more important than the ends.
 
1.)What DEFINTES a good leader or politician is an ethical question.

2.)What the role of politics, what the goal of politics, what the purpose of it, the validity of it and so on are all ethical questions. You CANNOT talk about politics with out presuming ethical truths or debating them.

1.) ??? i think you mean defines and no im not mocking you god knows im a horrible typer myself. But i dont think that alwasy is an ethical question in a country like the USA.

constitution, bill of rights etc etc

these cant be ignored to be a good politician IMO.

if somebody has a religion of blue birds and blur birds say all red heads, black people, women and left handed people are not second class citzens is not being a good politician.

Now i understand what you are saying, lots of blue birds might think its great but it would just instantly prove they dont understand the country.

2.) i agree they will crossover but its always secondary, not primary. SO of course one can talk politics and not ethics, the limit of eitheic in many cases will be upholding the rules of government or not. Person ethics can be left out a lot. Like i said my PERSONAL ones many times are meaningless.
 
Yes, but with a qualification. I view morality as a set of rules that prevent individuals from hurting each other and blocking each others' ways to happiness - WHATEVER EACH OF THEM PERCEIVES as "happiness". But if somebody's happiness could be derived from being a successful serial killer - tough. In this sense, the means are more important than the ends.

Happiness (or suffering) is not subject to any single persons interpretation of it, a persons perception of happiness has no bearing whatsoever on morality. This is because there are facts that can be known about the human condition and the world we live in. Being sick is bad, eating healthy food is good, being placed in isolation is bad, having healthy relationships with other people is good. Facts about a person's condition can be evaluated independent of any single person's experience. For example, a person with Pica (a condition where people enjoy consuming non-food items) may enjoy drinking laundry detergent, but their subjective experience of drinking detergent does nothing to change the fact that it causes objective harm. Thus if, as in your example, a person enjoys random killing of other people, it can be said to be objectively wrong. This is because morality is a system by which individuals determine right or wrong (internally), but they apply those ideas in the context of society.

Using the "don't do to others what you don't want done to you" is a good general rule, but like most rules it cannot be applied in an absolute fashion. Can you think of any instance where killing another person would be justified? I'm sure you can, and this breaks your "don't do to others...." rule. That's why we need a system that looks at the system in context and sets specific fundamental goals, specifically to improve happiness and decrease suffering. Everything beyond that is a prescriptive system meant to accomplish those goals. Would you agree?
 
Back
Top Bottom